After suffering a stinging bureaucratic blow in the permitting process last month, the agency charged with improving flood control around the volatile San Francisquito Creek approved on Thursday an approach for getting the long-awaited project back on track: cooperation and, if needed, litigation.
But the project suffered a setback last month, when the water board notified the creek authority that the permit application was denied without prejudice. In a Feb. 27 letter, the water board requested that the creek authority submit a new application that analyzes at least two other design alternatives and that includes more technical data, including "all of the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling performed for the various alternatives evaluated for the Project." It also requested that a future application include upstream alternatives.
The creek authority noted in response that it had already evaluated and rejected many of the alternatives that the water board is advocating and argued that the urgently needed project shouldn't be delayed by exploration of upstream alternatives that may never materialize. The creek authority's letter stated that it supports the use of upstream detention as part of the broad planning effort and that is has been discussing such projects for several years with Stanford University, which owns property upstream.
"However, we must not hold up a proposed project that eliminates an immediate threat to life and property in an underserved community by waiting for an upstream detention project by a private entity that is far off in the future, or may never happen," the creek authority's response stated.
The creek authority, which has been pursuing the project in the most flood-prone area in the creek's for more than five years, has a board of directors composed of elected officials from Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County Flood Control District. Before Thursday's meeting, the creek authority's board conferred in a closed session and agreed to authorize staff to file a petition challenging the denial of the permit application. The petition will be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board, which oversees the nine regional boards. The creek authority is also requesting that the review of the petition be suspended while it tries to resolve its issues with the water board.
Menlo Park Councilwoman Kirsten Keith, who chairs the creek authority's board, said the board agreed to file the petition because the 30-day deadline to challenge the board's denial will soon expire. But the cities are requesting that the challenge be held in abeyance "so we can continue working with the California and regional water boards to have our certification approved," Keith said.
In the weeks since the permit rejection, staff from the creek authority has been meeting with water board officials in hopes of bridging the gap and satisfying the board's concerns. Len Materman, the creek authority's executive director, said his agency has agreed to provide to the water board an analysis of the two alternatives the board wanted to see. The water board's main concern, Materman said, was the impact of the project on the Faber tract, a marshy stretch in East Palo Alto that is home to the endangered clapper rail and salt marsh harvest mouse.
One alternative that the creek authority will have to further explore is extending the new widened channel further north, to the point where the Palo Alto Airport meets the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course. The other alternative would create a new bypass channel that would divert some of the flow from the creek to a location near the Baylands Athletic Center. The channel would cut across the southern edge of the airport property and discharge near the site of the former Palo Alto Harbor.
Materman said he hopes that recent conversations with the water board will allow the creek authority to accelerate the process of complying with the board's concerns. Still, he said, the creek authority will have plenty of work to do in the next few weeks in addressing these concerns.
"The good news is we believe we have have a specific understanding with their executive director of exactly what needs to be done," Materman said. "Hopefully that means the goal posts are no longer moving. That's our goal."
It helps that the water board denied the permit "without prejudice," which allows the creek authority to try again with some modifications. In its rejection letter, the water board's Executive Officer Bruce Wolfe wrote that water board recognizes "the significance of the Project to the community and the JPA's urgency is securing all permits for the Project and proceeding to construction."
The letter of rejection, Wolfe wrote, is "intended to provide guidance to the JPA on how to best move forward to secure permits from the Regional Water Board and other regulatory agencies."
"Further, the Regional Water Board is committed to working with the JPA on coordinating and streamlining the permitting process," Wolfe's letter reads.
This story contains 987 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.
If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.